Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write off the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Friday, July 2, 2021

The Perfect Marriage Between Process Theology & Natural Theology



The Perfect Marriage Between
Process Theology & Natural Theology

Having spent a fair amount of development on process theology early last fall I said then that to appreciate process in the bible, or to be able to comprehend God as a process God, we would need to spend some time in the area of natural theology. That is, in describing our work-a-day world in terms of process-everything. Unless this is done, the bible's process God can never be seen in context with God's process creation. Both God, and nature, must be as the other. Not foreign to the other - as this would not be synchronous with who God is. That is, a Creator God who makes something wholly alien to God's being. God is One.

As an artist sculpts themselves and their perspectives (even if those perspectives are of an outside subject beyond themselves), or as an athlete plays true to who they are, or a counselor or teacher gives away part of themselves to another, so too God cannot create in unGod-like ways. God cannot be two or three but one divine soul, if you well. This is my presumption and my belief. That God is first and foremost and "I" before He is an "I AM." It speaks to integrity of the divine Self. To the wholeness of the divine Being. To the Essence which is unparted, unimpaired, fully whole and wholly complete.


Thus and thus, I have been spending some time with "non-Christian" things of the world, so to say. Those things which are "beyond the bible" speaking to evolution, science, the social sciences, religions, Christian humanism, social justice, philosophies, and so forth. Not that these areas are not Christian, or of the bible, but that for many believers these areas have been artificially separated from their divine contexts apart from God when in actuality all parts of creation are part of who God is. Our artificial barriers as to what is, and what isn't divine, or biblical, is only restricted by our imaginations and preferences. In reality, to speak of this world is to speak of God. And to speak of God is to speak of this world (and the worlds beyond, as was mentioned in yesterday's post). Neither one or the other may be separated from their context. We see God through the world even as we see the world through God. They are a contextualised witness to one another and to what or who each is.


And so, to have a biblical theology one must also have a theology of the natural world... we call this a "Natural Theology." The kind which got Copernicus in trouble when he stated to the Church that the sun didn't revolve around earth but the earth around the sun. Or when Charles Darwin told the Church that we descended from monkeys which seemingly contradicted the bible in the minds of its adherents but which has been plainly evidenced over the years again, and again, and again. Both men were faithful to God and both men were persecuted unnecessarily by the Church in its fervor to "protect" God from Himself. How strange.

What a good natural theology can do is to widen our smaller bible-world imaginations by connecting what we think we know with what we should know - and make room to accomodate for - within our Christian Church faiths and fellowships. A Christian faith isn't worth much if it doesn't comport well with the world. A world which we might very much describe as mysterious and full of wonderment. A world we fully cannot grasp or imagine unless we have individuals who arise from generation to generation to voice their findings and discoveries to the world at large. Alfred North Whitehead was one such voice....


A hundred years ago Whitehead connected the dots between the natural world and the world of Christianity to declare all is in process with all else. That all is in relationship to the greater whole even down to its parts. That by only studying the parts we miss the whole. That our universe is not composed of its parts alone disconnected from the whole, but that parts and whole together inform us of our world and the world of God. Whitehead was rejecting the reductionistic perspective of the sciences and stating that science must have a contiguous cosmology to go along with its observations of the isolated.

Further, Whitehead stated that all is moving from a state of the past to a present state of the future, mutating from one novel form to another, fully unique and never to repeated again. That life is a moment-by-moment relational present both affected by its past and affecting its future. To see life in terms of fullness, beauty, wonder, and imagination in its natural flows and rhythms, correlations and correspondence with both parts and wholes.

Whitehead's cosmology was a new cosmology echoing GWF Hegel in part - and if we go much further back, even that of the ancient Greeks in a decidedly non-Platonic way (e.g., abstract eternal objects as forever concrete states; thus, the Christian God as cast God as a transcendent eternal object wholly unaffected and isolated from His creation). He took what he knew from mathematics, and had heard from the early quantum scientists (Maxwell, Einstein, and Planck, for instance) as a fellow of the Royal Academy of London, and from the earlier philosophers of his day, to reinstitute a metaphysical cosmology left for dead by the mechanistic reductionist crowd over the last 200+ years.

"Whiteheadians are recruited among both philosophers and theologians, and the palette has been enriched by practitioners from the most diverse horizons, from ecology to feminism, practices that unite political struggle and spirituality with the sciences of education." In recent decades, attention to Whitehead's work has become more widespread, with interest extending to intellectuals in Europe and China, and coming from such diverse fields as ecology, physics, biology, education, economics, and psychology. One of the first theologians to attempt to interact with Whitehead's thought was the future Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple. In Temple's Gifford Lectures of 1932-1934 (subsequently published as "Nature, Man and God"), Whitehead is one of a number of philosophers of the emergent evolution approach with which Temple interacts. However, it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that Whitehead's thought drew much attention outside of a small group of philosophers and theologians, primarily Americans, and even today he is not considered especially influential outside of relatively specialized circles." - quote from Wikipedia's Influences section copied below.

 


So what does this all mean to the church and the readers of the bible? That to exclude "non-biblical" theologies of the world, of nature, is to learn to misread the bible according to one's imaginary worlds of theology rather than to stand corrected in one's biblical theology able to absorb when proper, visions of creation telling us about the God we adore and worship.

That to ignore the external disciplines of the world, to not see the world in its many compositions through the eyes of others, is to limit the God of the bible, and bible's ability to narrate properly the story of salvation. That inferior ideas about God (such as Plato's eternal objects) mislead us in our social imaginaries to whom God is, and isn't, compounding error upon error until we have quite thoroughly misunderstood God entirely.

That a full Christian witness must account for all things and not simply bible study classes and hearsay as satisfactory accounts of God's world. To allow in those witnesses which tell of a God who is more loving, humanitarian, good, and benevolent over the stories of anger, and wrath, avenging the evils of this world, and the sordid lives committed to harm and disparagement.

That God is never less than God. A God who is quite near to us and not far away. A God who has song into reality a world of creational novelty, openness, fulfillment, and beauty. A world in which we are responsible to caretake in all its biological, humanitarian, economic, political, and communal aspects. To not neglect the whole for the part or the part for the whole. But to learn to together work as one body corporate looking past our hates and pettiness to see the other, hear the other, and uplift the other over ourselves.

This is the God way. The God pattern. A way which God partakes with the world assisting where allowed in a freewilled creation to help it become what in His image it is composed of... of love, wellbeing, goodness, and caretake. That in the evolutionary struggle to become we do not neglect what we are. To resist evil, to do the right thing, to heal where and when we can. Process Theology says that who God is is what creation is. We are the image bearers of God. We are God's voice, hands and feet. To use them well and to contribute to the creative wellbeing of future generations to the glory of God. Amen.

R.E. Slater
July 2, 2021



Alfred North Whitehead

Jump to navigationJump to search
Alfred North Whitehead

Alfred North Whitehead in 1936.jpg
Born15 February 1861
Died30 December 1947 (aged 86)
EducationTrinity College, Cambridge
(B.A., 1884)
Era20th-century philosophy
RegionWestern philosophy
School
Institutions
Academic advisorsEdward Routh[1]
Doctoral students
Main interests
Notable ideas
Process philosophy
Process theology
Influences
Influenced
Signature
Alfred North Whitehead signature.svg

Alfred North Whitehead OM FRS FBA (15 February 1861 – 30 December 1947) was an English mathematician and philosopher. He is best known as the defining figure of the philosophical school known as process philosophy,[21] which today has found application to a wide variety of disciplines, including ecologytheologyeducationphysicsbiologyeconomics, and psychology, among other areas.

In his early career Whitehead wrote primarily on mathematicslogic, and physics. His most notable work in these fields is the three-volume Principia Mathematica (1910–1913), which he wrote with former student Bertrand RussellPrincipia Mathematica is considered one of the twentieth century's most important works in mathematical logic, and placed 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century by Modern Library.[22]

Beginning in the late 1910s and early 1920s, Whitehead gradually turned his attention from mathematics to philosophy of science, and finally to metaphysics. He developed a comprehensive metaphysical system which radically departed from most of Western philosophy. Whitehead argued that reality consists of processes rather than material objects, and that processes are best defined by their relations with other processes, thus rejecting the theory that reality is fundamentally constructed by bits of matter that exist independently of one another.[23] Today Whitehead's philosophical works – particularly Process and Reality – are regarded as the foundational texts of process philosophy.

Whitehead's process philosophy argues that "there is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have consequences for the world around us."[23] For this reason, one of the most promising applications of Whitehead's thought in recent years has been in the area of ecological civilization and environmental ethics pioneered by John B. Cobb.[24][25]

Life

Childhood and education

Whewell's Court north range at Trinity CollegeCambridge. Whitehead spent thirty years at Trinity, five as a student and twenty-five as a senior lecturer.

Alfred North Whitehead was born in RamsgateKent, England, in 1861.[26] His father, Alfred Whitehead, was a minister and schoolmaster of Chatham House Academy, a school for boys established by Thomas Whitehead, Alfred North's grandfather.[27] Whitehead himself recalled both of them as being very successful schools, but that his grandfather was the more extraordinary man.[27] Whitehead's mother was Maria Sarah Whitehead, formerly Maria Sarah Buckmaster. Whitehead was apparently not particularly close with his mother, as he never mentioned her in any of his writings, and there is evidence that Whitehead's wife, Evelyn, had a low opinion of her.[28]

Alfred's brother Henry became Bishop of Madras, and wrote the closely observed ethnographic account Village Gods of South-India (Calcutta: Association Press, 1921).

Whitehead was educated at Sherborne, a prominent English public school, where he excelled in sports and mathematics[29] and was head prefect of his class.[30]

In 1880, Whitehead began attending Trinity College, Cambridge, and studied mathematics.[31] His academic advisor was Edward Routh.[1] He earned his B.A. from Trinity in 1884, and graduated as fourth wrangler.[32]

Career

Elected a fellow of Trinity in 1884, and marrying Evelyn in 1890, Whitehead would teach and write on mathematics and physics at the college until 1910, spending the 1890s writing his Treatise on Universal Algebra (1898), and the 1900s collaborating with his former pupil, Bertrand Russell, on the first edition of Principia Mathematica.[33] He was a Cambridge Apostle.[34]

Bertrand Russell in 1907. Russell was a student of Whitehead's at Trinity College, and a longtime collaborator and friend.

In 1910, Whitehead resigned his senior lectureship in mathematics at Trinity and moved to London without first obtaining another job.[35] After being unemployed for a year, he accepted a position as lecturer in applied mathematics and mechanics at University College London, but was passed over a year later for the Goldsmid Chair of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, a position for which he had hoped to be seriously considered.[36]

In 1914, Whitehead accepted a position as professor of applied mathematics at the newly chartered Imperial College London, where his old friend Andrew Forsyth had recently been appointed chief professor of mathematics.[37]

In 1918, Whitehead's academic responsibilities began to seriously expand as he accepted a number of high administrative positions within the University of London system, of which Imperial College London was a member at the time. He was elected dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of London in late 1918 (a post he held for four years), a member of the University of London's Senate in 1919, and chairman of the Senate's Academic (leadership) Council in 1920, a post which he held until he departed for America in 1924.[37] Whitehead was able to exert his newfound influence to successfully lobby for a new history of science department, help establish a Bachelor of Science degree (previously only Bachelor of Arts degrees had been offered), and make the school more accessible to less wealthy students.[38]

Toward the end of his time in England, Whitehead turned his attention to philosophy. Though he had no advanced training in philosophy, his philosophical work soon became highly regarded. After publishing The Concept of Nature in 1920, he served as president of the Aristotelian Society from 1922 to 1923.[39]

Move to the United States, 1924

In 1924, Henry Osborn Taylor invited the 63-year-old Whitehead to join the faculty at Harvard University as a professor of philosophy.[40] The Whiteheads would spend the rest of their lives in the United States.

During his time at Harvard, Whitehead produced his most important philosophical contributions. In 1925, he wrote Science and the Modern World, which was immediately hailed as an alternative to the Cartesian dualism then prevalent in popular science.[41] Lectures from 1927 to 1928, were published in 1929 as a book named Process and Reality, which has been compared to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.[24]

Family and death

In 1890, Whitehead married Evelyn Wade, an Irishwoman raised in France; they had a daughter, Jessie, and two sons, Thomas and Eric.[30] Thomas followed his father to Harvard in 1931, to teach at the Business School. Eric died in action at the age of 19, while serving in the Royal Flying Corps during World War I.[42]

From 1910, the Whiteheads had a cottage in the village of Lockeridge, near Marlborough, Wiltshire; from there he completed Principia Mathematica.[43][44]

The Whiteheads remained in the United States after moving to Harvard in 1924. Alfred retired from Harvard in 1937 and remained in Cambridge, Massachusetts, until his death on 30 December 1947.[45]

Legacy

The two-volume biography of Whitehead by Victor Lowe[46] is the most definitive presentation of the life of Whitehead. However, many details of Whitehead's life remain obscure because he left no Nachlass (personal archive); his family carried out his instructions that all of his papers be destroyed after his death.[47] Additionally, Whitehead was known for his "almost fanatical belief in the right to privacy," and for writing very few personal letters of the kind that would help to gain insight on his life.[47] Wrote Lowe in his preface, "No professional biographer in his right mind would touch him."[26]

Led by Executive Editor Brian G. Henning and General Editor George R. Lucas Jr., the Whitehead Research Project of the Center for Process Studies is currently working on a critical edition of Whitehead's published and unpublished works.[48] The first volume of the Edinburgh Critical Edition of the Complete Works of Alfred North Whitehead was published in 2017 by Paul A. Bogaard and Jason Bell as The Harvard Lectures of Alfred North Whitehead, 1924–1925: The Philosophical Presuppositions of Science.[49]

Mathematics and logic

In addition to numerous articles on mathematics, Whitehead wrote three major books on the subject: A Treatise on Universal Algebra (1898), Principia Mathematica (co-written with Bertrand Russell and published in three volumes between 1910 and 1913), and An Introduction to Mathematics (1911). The former two books were aimed exclusively at professional mathematicians, while the latter book was intended for a larger audience, covering the history of mathematics and its philosophical foundations.[50] Principia Mathematica in particular is regarded as one of the most important works in mathematical logic of the 20th century.

In addition to his legacy as a co-writer of Principia Mathematica, Whitehead's theory of "extensive abstraction" is considered foundational for the branch of ontology and computer science known as "mereotopology," a theory describing spatial relations among wholes, parts, parts of parts, and the boundaries between parts.[51]

A Treatise on Universal Algebra

In A Treatise on Universal Algebra (1898), the term universal algebra had essentially the same meaning that it has today: the study of algebraic structures themselves, rather than examples ("models") of algebraic structures.[52] Whitehead credits William Rowan Hamilton and Augustus De Morgan as originators of the subject matter, and James Joseph Sylvester with coining the term itself.[52][53]

At the time, structures such as Lie algebras and hyperbolic quaternions drew attention to the need to expand algebraic structures beyond the associatively multiplicative class. In a review Alexander Macfarlane wrote: "The main idea of the work is not unification of the several methods, nor generalization of ordinary algebra so as to include them, but rather the comparative study of their several structures."[54] In a separate review, G. B. Mathews wrote, "It possesses a unity of design which is really remarkable, considering the variety of its themes."[55]

A Treatise on Universal Algebra sought to examine Hermann Grassmann's theory of extension ("Ausdehnungslehre"), Boole's algebra of logic, and Hamilton's quaternions (this last number system was to be taken up in Volume II, which was never finished due to Whitehead's work on Principia Mathematica).[56] Whitehead wrote in the preface:

Such algebras have an intrinsic value for separate detailed study; also they are worthy of comparative study, for the sake of the light thereby thrown on the general theory of symbolic reasoning, and on algebraic symbolism in particular... The idea of a generalized conception of space has been made prominent, in the belief that the properties and operations involved in it can be made to form a uniform method of interpretation of the various algebras.[57]

Whitehead, however, had no results of a general nature.[52] His hope of "form[ing] a uniform method of interpretation of the various algebras" presumably would have been developed in Volume II, had Whitehead completed it. Further work on the subject was minimal until the early 1930s, when Garrett Birkhoff and Øystein Ore began publishing on universal algebras.[58]

Principia Mathematica

The title page of the shortened version of the Principia Mathematica to *56

Principia Mathematica (1910–1913) is Whitehead's most famous mathematical work. Written with former student Bertrand RussellPrincipia Mathematica is considered one of the twentieth century's most important works in mathematics, and placed 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century by Modern Library.[22]

Principia Mathematica's purpose was to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. Whitehead and Russell were working on such a foundational level of mathematics and logic that it took them until page 86 of Volume II to prove that 1+1=2, a proof humorously accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful."[59]

Whitehead and Russell had thought originally that Principia Mathematica would take a year to complete; it ended up taking them ten years.[60] When it came time for publication, the three-volume work was so long (more than 2,000 pages) and its audience so narrow (professional mathematicians) that it was initially published at a loss of 600 pounds, 300 of which was paid by Cambridge University Press, 200 by the Royal Society of London, and 50 apiece by Whitehead and Russell themselves.[60] Despite the initial loss, today there is likely no major academic library in the world which does not hold a copy of Principia Mathematica.[61]

The ultimate substantive legacy of Principia Mathematica is mixed. It is generally accepted that Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem of 1931 definitively demonstrated that for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, there would in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them, and hence that Principia Mathematica could never achieve its aims.[62] However, Gödel could not have come to this conclusion without Whitehead and Russell's book. In this way, Principia Mathematica's legacy might be described as its key role in disproving the possibility of achieving its own stated goals.[63] But beyond this somewhat ironic legacy, the book popularized modern mathematical logic and drew important connections between logic, epistemology, and metaphysics.[64]

An Introduction to Mathematics

Unlike Whitehead's previous two books on mathematics, An Introduction to Mathematics (1911) was not aimed exclusively at professional mathematicians, but was intended for a larger audience. The book covered the nature of mathematics, its unity and internal structure, and its applicability to nature.[50] Whitehead wrote in the opening chapter:

The object of the following Chapters is not to teach mathematics, but to enable students from the very beginning of their course to know what the science is about, and why it is necessarily the foundation of exact thought as applied to natural phenomena.[65]

The book can be seen as an attempt to understand the growth in unity and interconnection of mathematics as a whole, as well as an examination of the mutual influence of mathematics and philosophy, language, and physics.[66] Although the book is little-read, in some ways it prefigures certain points of Whitehead's later work in philosophy and metaphysics.[67]

Views on education

Whitehead showed a deep concern for educational reform at all levels. In addition to his numerous individually written works on the subject, Whitehead was appointed by Britain's Prime Minister David Lloyd George as part of a 20-person committee to investigate the educational systems and practices of the UK in 1921 and recommend reform.[68]

Whitehead's most complete work on education is the 1929 book The Aims of Education and Other Essays, which collected numerous essays and addresses by Whitehead on the subject published between 1912 and 1927. The essay from which Aims of Education derived its name was delivered as an address in 1916 when Whitehead was president of the London Branch of the Mathematical Association. In it, he cautioned against the teaching of what he called "inert ideas" – ideas that are disconnected scraps of information, with no application to real life or culture. He opined that "education with inert ideas is not only useless: it is, above all things, harmful."[69]

Rather than teach small parts of a large number of subjects, Whitehead advocated teaching a relatively few important concepts that the student could organically link to many different areas of knowledge, discovering their application in actual life.[70] For Whitehead, education should be the exact opposite of the multidisciplinary, value-free school model[69][71] – it should be transdisciplinary, and laden with values and general principles that provide students with a bedrock of wisdom and help them to make connections between areas of knowledge that are usually regarded as separate.

In order to make this sort of teaching a reality, however, Whitehead pointed to the need to minimize the importance of (or radically alter) standard examinations for school entrance. Whitehead writes:

Every school is bound on pain of extinction to train its boys for a small set of definite examinations. No headmaster has a free hand to develop his general education or his specialist studies in accordance with the opportunities of his school, which are created by its staff, its environment, its class of boys, and its endowments. I suggest that no system of external tests which aims primarily at examining individual scholars can result in anything but educational waste.[72]

Whitehead argued that curriculum should be developed specifically for its own students by its own staff, or else risk total stagnation, interrupted only by occasional movements from one group of inert ideas to another.

Above all else in his educational writings, Whitehead emphasized the importance of imagination and the free play of ideas. In his essay "Universities and Their Function", Whitehead writes provocatively on imagination:

Imagination is not to be divorced from the facts: it is a way of illuminating the facts. It works by eliciting the general principles which apply to the facts, as they exist, and then by an intellectual survey of alternative possibilities which are consistent with those principles. It enables men to construct an intellectual vision of a new world.[73]

Whitehead's philosophy of education might adequately be summarized in his statement that "knowledge does not keep any better than fish."[74] In other words, bits of disconnected knowledge are meaningless; all knowledge must find some imaginative application to the students' own lives, or else it becomes so much useless trivia, and the students themselves become good at parroting facts but not thinking for themselves.

Philosophy and metaphysics

Richard Rummell's 1906 watercolor landscape view of Harvard University, facing northeast.[75] Whitehead taught at Harvard from 1924 to 1937.

Whitehead did not begin his career as a philosopher.[26] In fact, he never had any formal training in philosophy beyond his undergraduate education. Early in his life, he showed great interest in and respect for philosophy and metaphysics, but it is evident that he considered himself a rank amateur. In one letter to his friend and former student Bertrand Russell, after discussing whether science aimed to be explanatory or merely descriptive, he wrote: "This further question lands us in the ocean of metaphysic, onto which my profound ignorance of that science forbids me to enter."[76] Ironically, in later life, Whitehead would become one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians.

However, interest in metaphysics – the philosophical investigation of the nature of the universe and existence – had become unfashionable by the time Whitehead began writing in earnest about it in the 1920s. The ever-more impressive accomplishments of empirical science had led to a general consensus in academia that the development of comprehensive metaphysical systems was a waste of time because they were not subject to empirical testing.[77]

Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one of his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized."[78] In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles,"[79] he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason, Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy.[80]

Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another.[81] He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental.[82] Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism," but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy."[82]

Whitehead's philosophy was highly original, and soon garnered interest in philosophical circles. After publishing The Concept of Nature in 1920, he served as president of the Aristotelian Society from 1922 to 1923, and Henri Bergson was quoted as saying that Whitehead was "the best philosopher writing in English."[83] So impressive and different was Whitehead's philosophy that in 1924 he was invited to join the faculty at Harvard University as a professor of philosophy at 63 years of age.[40]

Eckhart Hall at the University of Chicago. Beginning with the arrival of Henry Nelson Wieman in 1927, Chicago's Divinity School become closely associated with Whitehead's thought for about thirty years.[84]

This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the Western canon.[24] Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centres around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality:

Eddington was a marvellous popular lecturer who had enthralled an audience of 600 for his entire course. The same audience turned up to Whitehead's first lecture but it was completely unintelligible, not merely to the world at large but to the elect. My father remarked to me afterwards that if he had not known Whitehead well he would have suspected that it was an imposter making it up as he went along... The audience at subsequent lectures was only about half a dozen in all.[85]

It may not be inappropriate to speculate that some fair portion of the respect generally shown to Whitehead by his philosophical peers at the time arose from their sheer bafflement. The Chicago theologian Shailer Mathews once remarked of Whitehead's 1926 book Religion in the Making: "It is infuriating, and I must say embarrassing as well, to read page after page of relatively familiar words without understanding a single sentence."[86]

However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927, they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts, Henry Nelson Wieman, to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought.[86] Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought.[84]

Shortly after Whitehead's book Process and Reality appeared in 1929, Wieman famously wrote in his 1930 review:

Not many people will read Whitehead's recent book in this generation; not many will read it in any generation. But its influence will radiate through concentric circles of popularization until the common man will think and work in the light of it, not knowing whence the light came. After a few decades of discussion and analysis one will be able to understand it more readily than can now be done.[87]

Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century,"[88] it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus."[89] Whitehead questioned Western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works — but in doing so, he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions.[90]

Whitehead's conception of reality

Whitehead was convinced that the scientific notion of matter was misleading as a way of describing the ultimate nature of things. In his 1925 book Science and the Modern World, he wrote that:

There persists ... [a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call "scientific materialism." Also it is an assumption which I shall challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived.[81]

In Whitehead's view, there are a number of problems with this notion of "irreducible brute matter." First, it obscures and minimizes the importance of change. By thinking of any material thing (like a rock, or a person) as being fundamentally the same thing throughout time, with any changes to it being secondary to its "nature," scientific materialism hides the fact that nothing ever stays the same. For Whitehead, change is fundamental and inescapable; he emphasizes that "all things flow."[91]

In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality," "matter," and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks.[92] What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events.[93] After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events.[94] By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness").[82][95]

To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g., "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people; people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow," though it is often a useful way of speaking.

Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech.[96] After all, every moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next.

John Locke was one of Whitehead's primary influences. In the preface to Process and Reality, Whitehead wrote: "The writer who most fully anticipated the main positions of the philosophy of organism is John Locke in his Essay."[5]

A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves.[97] A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that, "Reality applies to connections, and only relatively to the things connected. (A) is real for (B), and (B) is real for (A), but [they are] not absolutely real independent of each other."[98] In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it.[99] A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e., it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist.[100] Relations are not secondary to what a thing is; they are what the thing is.

It must be emphasized,[why?] however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them.[101] For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws.[102] Most entities do not have consciousness.[103] As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable.[104]

The other side of creativity/freedom as the absolute principle is that every entity is constrained by the social structure of existence (i.e., its relations); each actual entity must conform to the settled conditions of the world around it.[100] Freedom always exists within limits. But an entity's uniqueness and individuality arise from its own self-determination as to just how it will take account of the world within the limits that have been set for it.[105]

In summary, Whitehead rejects the idea of separate and unchanging bits of matter as the most basic building blocks of reality, in favor of the idea of reality as interrelated events in process. He conceives of reality as composed of processes of dynamic "becoming" rather than static "being," emphasizing that all physical things change and evolve, and that changeless "essences" such as matter are mere abstractions from the interrelated events that are the final real things that make up the world.[82]

Theory of perception

Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension," which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize".[106] The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities.[106] For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself.[106] In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension").[103]

Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go."[107] It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception," unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g., mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing").[108]

In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference," which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair," but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape."[109] This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such."[110] In this way, symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates).[111]

Evolution and value

Whitehead believed that when asking questions about the basic facts of existence, questions about value and purpose can never be fully escaped. This is borne out in his thoughts on abiogenesis, or the hypothetical natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds.

Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value."[112] If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them."[113] He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better.[114] In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible.

For Whitehead, there is no such thing as wholly inert matter. Instead, all things have some measure of freedom or creativity, however small, which allows them to be at least partly self-directed. The process philosopher David Ray Griffin coined the term "panexperientialism" (the idea that all entities experience) to describe Whitehead's view, and to distinguish it from panpsychism (the idea that all matter has consciousness).[115]

God

"I am also greatly indebted to BergsonWilliam James, and John Dewey. One of my preoccupations has been to rescue their type of thought from the charge of anti-intellectualism, which rightly or wrongly has been associated with it." – Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, preface.[3]

Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions.[116] Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."[117] Here, Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility":

It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar, or the ruthless moralist, or the unmoved mover. It dwells upon the tender elements in the world, which slowly and in quietness operates by love; and it finds purpose in the present immediacy of a kingdom not of this world. Love neither rules, nor is it unmoved; also it is a little oblivious as to morals. It does not look to the future; for it finds its own reward in the immediate present.[118]

For Whitehead, God is not necessarily tied to religion.[119] Rather than springing primarily from religious faith, Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system.[119] His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities. Whitehead posited that these ordered potentials exist in what he called the primordial nature of God. However, Whitehead was also interested in religious experience. This led him to reflect more intensively on what he saw as the second nature of God, the consequent nature. Whitehead's conception of God as a "dipolar"[120] entity has called for fresh theological thinking.

The primordial nature he described as "the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth of potentiality"[118] — i.e., the unlimited possibility of the universe. This primordial nature is eternal and unchanging, providing entities in the universe with possibilities for realization. Whitehead also calls this primordial aspect "the lure for feeling, the eternal urge of desire,"[121] pulling the entities in the universe toward as-yet unrealized possibilities.

God's consequent nature, on the other hand, is anything but unchanging; it is God's reception of the world's activity. As Whitehead puts it, "[God] saves the world as it passes into the immediacy of his own life. It is the judgment of a tenderness which loses nothing that can be saved."[122] In other words, God saves and cherishes all experiences forever, and those experiences go on to change the way God interacts with the world. In this way, God is really changed by what happens in the world and the wider universe, lending the actions of finite creatures an eternal significance.

Whitehead thus sees God and the world as fulfilling one another. He sees entities in the world as fluent and changing things that yearn for a permanence which only God can provide by taking them into God's self, thereafter changing God and affecting the rest of the universe throughout time. On the other hand, he sees God as permanent but as deficient in actuality and change: alone, God is merely eternally unrealized possibilities, and requires the world to actualize them. God gives creatures permanence, while the creatures give God actuality and change. Here it is worthwhile to quote Whitehead at length:

"In this way God is completed by the individual, fluent satisfactions of finite fact, and the temporal occasions are completed by their everlasting union with their transformed selves, purged into conformation with the eternal order which is the final absolute 'wisdom.' The final summary can only be expressed in terms of a group of antitheses, whose apparent self-contradictions depend on neglect of the diverse categories of existence. In each antithesis there is a shift of meaning which converts the opposition into a contrast.

"It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.

"It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.

"It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.

"It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.

"It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.

"It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God...

"What is done in the world is transformed into a reality in heaven, and the reality in heaven passes back into the world... In this sense, God is the great companion – the fellow-sufferer who understands."[123]

The above is some of Whitehead's most evocative writing about God, and was powerful enough to inspire the movement known as process theology, a vibrant theological school of thought that continues to thrive today.[124][125]

Religion

For Whitehead, the core of religion was individual. While he acknowledged that individuals cannot ever be fully separated from their society, he argued that life is an internal fact for its own sake before it is an external fact relating to others.[126] His most famous remark on religion is that "religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness ... and if you are never solitary, you are never religious."[127] Whitehead saw religion as a system of general truths that transformed a person's character.[128] He took special care to note that while religion is often a good influence, it is not necessarily good – an idea which he called a "dangerous delusion" (e.g., a religion might encourage the violent extermination of a rival religion's adherents).[129]

However, while Whitehead saw religion as beginning in solitariness, he also saw religion as necessarily expanding beyond the individual. In keeping with his process metaphysics in which relations are primary, he wrote that religion necessitates the realization of "the value of the objective world which is a community derivative from the interrelations of its component individuals."[130] In other words, the universe is a community which makes itself whole through the relatedness of each individual entity to all the others; meaning and value do not exist for the individual alone, but only in the context of the universal community. Whitehead writes further that each entity "can find no such value till it has merged its individual claim with that of the objective universe. Religion is world-loyalty. The spirit at once surrenders itself to this universal claim and appropriates it for itself."[131] In this way, the individual and universal/social aspects of religion are mutually dependent.

Whitehead also described religion more technically as "an ultimate craving to infuse into the insistent particularity of emotion that non-temporal generality which primarily belongs to conceptual thought alone."[132] In other words, religion takes deeply felt emotions and contextualizes them within a system of general truths about the world, helping people to identify their wider meaning and significance. For Whitehead, religion served as a kind of bridge between philosophy and the emotions and purposes of a particular society.[133] It is the task of religion to make philosophy applicable to the everyday lives of ordinary people.

Influence

Isabelle Stengers wrote that "Whiteheadians are recruited among both philosophers and theologians, and the palette has been enriched by practitioners from the most diverse horizons, from ecology to feminism, practices that unite political struggle and spirituality with the sciences of education."[89] In recent decades, attention to Whitehead's work has become more widespread, with interest extending to intellectuals in Europe and China, and coming from such diverse fields as ecology, physics, biology, education, economics, and psychology. One of the first theologians to attempt to interact with Whitehead's thought was the future Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple. In Temple's Gifford Lectures of 1932-1934 (subsequently published as "Nature, Man and God"), Whitehead is one of a number of philosophers of the emergent evolution approach with which Temple interacts.[134] However, it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that Whitehead's thought drew much attention outside of a small group of philosophers and theologians, primarily Americans, and even today he is not considered especially influential outside of relatively specialized circles.

Early followers of Whitehead were found primarily at the University of Chicago Divinity School, where Henry Nelson Wieman initiated an interest in Whitehead's work that would last for about thirty years.[84] Professors such as Wieman, Charles HartshorneBernard Loomer, Bernard Meland, and Daniel Day Williams made Whitehead's philosophy arguably the most important intellectual thread running through the divinity school.[135] They taught generations of Whitehead scholars, the most notable of whom is John B. Cobb.

Although interest in Whitehead has since faded at Chicago's divinity school, Cobb effectively grabbed the torch and planted it firmly in Claremont, California, where he began teaching at Claremont School of Theology in 1958 and founded the Center for Process Studies with David Ray Griffin in 1973.[136] Largely due to Cobb's influence, today Claremont remains strongly identified with Whitehead's process thought.[137][138]

But while Claremont remains the most concentrated hub of Whiteheadian activity, the place where Whitehead's thought currently seems to be growing the most quickly is in China. In order to address the challenges of modernization and industrialization, China has begun to blend traditions of TaoismBuddhism, and Confucianism with Whitehead's "constructive post-modern" philosophy in order to create an "ecological civilization".[71] To date, the Chinese government has encouraged the building of twenty-three university-based centres for the study of Whitehead's philosophy,[71][139] and books by process philosophers John Cobb and David Ray Griffin are becoming required reading for Chinese graduate students.[71] Cobb has attributed China's interest in process philosophy partly to Whitehead's stress on the mutual interdependence of humanity and nature, as well as his emphasis on an educational system that includes the teaching of values rather than simply bare facts.[71]

Overall, however, Whitehead's influence is very difficult to characterize. In English-speaking countries, his primary works are little-studied outside of Claremont and a select number of liberal graduate-level theology and philosophy programs. Outside of these circles, his influence is relatively small and diffuse, and has tended to come chiefly through the work of his students and admirers rather than Whitehead himself.[140] For instance, Whitehead was a teacher and long-time friend and collaborator of Bertrand Russell, and he also taught and supervised the dissertation of Willard Van Orman Quine,[141] both of whom are important figures in analytic philosophy – the dominant strain of philosophy in English-speaking countries in the 20th century.[142] Whitehead has also had high-profile admirers in the continental tradition, such as French post-structuralist philosopher Gilles Deleuze, who once dryly remarked of Whitehead that "he stands provisionally as the last great Anglo-American philosopher before Wittgenstein's disciples spread their misty confusion, sufficiency, and terror."[143] French sociologist and anthropologist Bruno Latour even went so far as to call Whitehead "the greatest philosopher of the 20th century."[144]

Deleuze's and Latour's opinions, however, are minority ones, as Whitehead has not been recognized as particularly influential within the most dominant philosophical schools.[145] It is impossible to say exactly why Whitehead's influence has not been more widespread, but it may be partly due to his metaphysical ideas seeming somewhat counterintuitive (such as his assertion that matter is an abstraction), or his inclusion of theistic elements in his philosophy,[146] or the perception of metaphysics itself as passé, or simply the sheer difficulty and density of his prose.[24]

Process philosophy and theology

Philosopher Nicholas Rescher. Rescher is a proponent of both Whiteheadian process philosophy and American pragmatism.

Historically, Whitehead's work has been most influential in the field of American progressive theology.[124][138] The most important early proponent of Whitehead's thought in a theological context was Charles Hartshorne, who spent a semester at Harvard as Whitehead's teaching assistant in 1925, and is widely credited with developing Whitehead's process philosophy into a full-blown process theology.[147] Other notable process theologians include John B. CobbDavid Ray GriffinMarjorie Hewitt SuchockiC. Robert MesleRoland Faber, and Catherine Keller.

Process theology typically stresses God's relational nature. Rather than seeing God as impassive or emotionless, process theologians view God as "the fellow sufferer who understands," and as the being who is supremely affected by temporal events.[148] Hartshorne points out that people would not praise a human ruler who was unaffected by either the joys or sorrows of his followers – so why would this be a praiseworthy quality in God?[149] Instead, as the being who is most affected by the world, God is the being who can most appropriately respond to the world. However, process theology has been formulated in a wide variety of ways. C. Robert Mesle, for instance, advocates a "process naturalism" — i.e., a process theology without God.[150]

In fact, process theology is difficult to define because process theologians are so diverse and transdisciplinary in their views and interests. John B. Cobb is a process theologian who has also written books on biology and economics. Roland Faber and Catherine Keller integrate Whitehead with poststructuralistpostcolonialist, and feminist theory. Charles Birch was both a theologian and a geneticistFranklin I. Gamwell writes on theology and political theory. In Syntheism - Creating God in The Internet Age, futurologists Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist repeatedly credit Whitehead for the process theology they see rising out of the participatory culture expected to dominate the digital era.

Process philosophy is even more difficult to pin down than process theology. In practice, the two fields cannot be neatly separated. The 32-volume State University of New York series in constructive postmodern thought edited by process philosopher and theologian David Ray Griffin displays the range of areas in which different process philosophers work, including physics, ecology, medicine, public policy, nonviolence, politics, and psychology.[151]

One philosophical school which has historically had a close relationship with process philosophy is American pragmatism. Whitehead himself thought highly of William James and John Dewey, and acknowledged his indebtedness to them in the preface to Process and Reality.[3] Charles Hartshorne (along with Paul Weiss) edited the collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, one of the founders of pragmatism. Noted neopragmatist Richard Rorty was in turn a student of Hartshorne.[152] Today, Nicholas Rescher is one example of a philosopher who advocates both process philosophy and pragmatism.

In addition, while they might not properly be called process philosophers, Whitehead has been influential in the philosophy of Gilles DeleuzeMilič ČapekIsabelle StengersBruno LatourSusanne Langer, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty.[citation needed]

Science

Theoretical physicist David Bohm. Bohm is one example of a scientist influenced by Whitehead's philosophy.[153]

Scientists of the early 20th century for whom Whitehead's work has been influential include physical chemist Ilya Prigogine, biologist Conrad Hal Waddington, and geneticists Charles Birch and Sewall Wright.[18] Henry Murray dedicated his "Explorations in Personality" to Whitehead, a contemporary at Harvard.

In physics, Whitehead's theory of gravitation articulated a view that might perhaps be regarded as dual to Albert Einstein's general relativity. It has been severely criticized.[154][155] Yutaka Tanaka suggested that the gravitational constant disagrees with experimental findings, and proposed that Einstein's work does not actually refute Whitehead's formulation.[156] Whitehead's view has now been rendered obsolete, with the discovery of gravitational waves, phenomena observed locally that largely violate the kind of local flatness of space that Whitehead assumes. Consequently, Whitehead's cosmology must be regarded as a local approximation, and his assumption of a uniform spatio-temporal geometry, Minkowskian in particular, as an often-locally-adequate approximation. An exact replacement of Whitehead's cosmology would need to admit a Riemannian geometry. Also, although Whitehead himself gave only secondary consideration to quantum theory, his metaphysics of processes has proved attractive to some physicists in that field. Henry Stapp and David Bohm are among those whose work has been influenced by Whitehead.[153]

In the 21st century, Whiteheadian thought is still a stimulating influence: Timothy E. Eastman and Hank Keeton's Physics and Whitehead (2004)[157] and Michael Epperson's Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (2004)[158] and Foundations of Relational Realism: A Topological Approach to Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Nature (2013),[159] aim to offer Whiteheadian approaches to physics. Brian G. Henning, Adam Scarfe, and Dorion Sagan's Beyond Mechanism (2013) and Rupert Sheldrake's Science Set Free (2012) are examples of Whiteheadian approaches to biology.

Ecology, economy, and sustainability

Theologian, philosopher, and environmentalist John B. Cobb founded the Center for Process Studies in Claremont, California with David Ray Griffin in 1973, and is often regarded as the preeminent scholar in the field of process philosophy and process theology.[160][161][162][163]

One of the most promising applications of Whitehead's thought in recent years has been in the area of ecological civilization, sustainability, and environmental ethics.

"Because Whitehead's holistic metaphysics of value lends itself so readily to an ecological point of view, many see his work as a promising alternative to the traditional mechanistic worldview, providing a detailed metaphysical picture of a world constituted by a web of interdependent relations."[24]

This work has been pioneered by John B. Cobb, whose book Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology (1971) was the first single-authored book in environmental ethics.[164] Cobb also co-authored a book with leading ecological economist and steady-state theorist Herman Daly entitled For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future (1989), which applied Whitehead's thought to economics, and received the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order. Cobb followed this with a second book, Sustaining the Common Good: A Christian Perspective on the Global Economy (1994), which aimed to challenge "economists' zealous faith in the great god of growth."[165]

Education

Whitehead is widely known for his influence in education theory. His philosophy inspired the formation of the Association for Process Philosophy of Education (APPE), which published eleven volumes of a journal titled Process Papers on process philosophy and education from 1996 to 2008.[166] Whitehead's theories on education also led to the formation of new modes of learning and new models of teaching.

One such model is the ANISA model developed by Daniel C. Jordan, which sought to address a lack of understanding of the nature of people in current education systems. As Jordan and Raymond P. Shepard put it: "Because it has not defined the nature of man, education is in the untenable position of having to devote its energies to the development of curricula without any coherent ideas about the nature of the creature for whom they are intended."[167]

Another model is the FEELS model developed by Xie Bangxiu and deployed successfully in China. "FEELS" stands for five things in curriculum and education: Flexible-goals, Engaged-learner, Embodied-knowledge, Learning-through-interactions, and Supportive-teacher.[168] It is used for understanding and evaluating educational curriculum under the assumption that the purpose of education is to "help a person become whole." This work is in part the product of cooperation between Chinese government organizations and the Institute for the Postmodern Development of China.[71]

Whitehead's philosophy of education has also found institutional support in Canada, where the University of Saskatchewan created a Process Philosophy Research Unit and sponsored several conferences on process philosophy and education.[169] Howard Woodhouse at the University of Saskatchewan remains a strong proponent of Whiteheadian education.[170]

Three recent books which further develop Whitehead's philosophy of education include: Modes of Learning: Whitehead's Metaphysics and the Stages of Education (2012) by George Allan; The Adventure of Education: Process Philosophers on Learning, Teaching, and Research (2009) by Adam Scarfe; and "Educating for an Ecological Civilization: Interdisciplinary, Experiential, and Relational Learning" (2017) edited by Marcus Ford and Stephen Rowe. "Beyond the Modern University: Toward a Constructive Postmodern University," (2002) is another text that explores the importance of Whitehead's metaphysics for thinking about higher education.

Business administration

Whitehead has had some influence on philosophy of business administration and organizational theory. This has led in part to a focus on identifying and investigating the effect of temporal events (as opposed to static things) within organizations through an "organization studies" discourse that accommodates a variety of 'weak' and 'strong' process perspectives from a number of philosophers.[171] One of the leading figures having an explicitly Whiteheadian and panexperientialist stance towards management is Mark Dibben,[172] who works in what he calls "applied process thought" to articulate a philosophy of management and business administration as part of a wider examination of the social sciences through the lens of process metaphysics. For Dibben, this allows "a comprehensive exploration of life as perpetually active experiencing, as opposed to occasional – and thoroughly passive – happening."[173] Dibben has published two books on applied process thought, Applied Process Thought I: Initial Explorations in Theory and Research (2008), and Applied Process Thought II: Following a Trail Ablaze (2009), as well as other papers in this vein in the fields of philosophy of management and business ethics.[174]

Margaret Stout and Carrie M. Staton have also written recently on the mutual influence of Whitehead and Mary Parker Follett, a pioneer in the fields of organizational theory and organizational behavior. Stout and Staton see both Whitehead and Follett as sharing an ontology that "understands becoming as a relational process; difference as being related, yet unique; and the purpose of becoming as harmonizing difference."[175] This connection is further analyzed by Stout and Jeannine M. Love in Integrative Process: Follettian Thinking from Ontology to Administration[176]

Political views

Whitehead's political views sometimes appear to be libertarian without the label. He wrote:

Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of two forms, force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. Warslavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force.[177]

On the other hand, many Whitehead scholars read his work as providing a philosophical foundation for the social liberalism of the New Liberal movement that was prominent throughout Whitehead's adult life. Morris wrote that "... there is good reason for claiming that Whitehead shared the social and political ideals of the new liberals."[178]

Primary works

Books written by Whitehead, listed by date of publication.

In addition, the Whitehead Research Project of the Center for Process Studies is currently working on a critical edition of Whitehead's writings, which is set to include notes taken by Whitehead's students during his Harvard classes, correspondence, and corrected editions of his books.[48]

  • Paul A. Bogaard and Jason Bell, eds. The Harvard Lectures of Alfred North Whitehead, 1924–1925: Philosophical Presuppositions of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

See also

References

  1. Jump up to:a b Alfred North Whitehead at the Mathematics Genealogy Project
  2. Jump up to:a b c Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 39.
  3. Jump up to:a b c d e Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), xii.
  4. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), xiii.
  5. Jump up to:a b c Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), xi.
  6. Jump up to:a b c d Michel Weber and Will Desmond, eds., Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Volume 1 (Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2008), 17.
  7. Jump up to:a b c d e John B. Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 174.
  8. Jump up to:a b c d Michel Weber and Will Desmond, eds., Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Volume 1 (Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2008), 26.
  9. ^ An Interview with Donald Davidson.
  10. ^ Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet, Dialogues II, Columbia University Press, 2007, p. vii.
  11. Jump up to:a b John B. Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 164-165.
  12. ^ John B. Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 175.
  13. ^ Thomas J. Fararo, "On the Foundations of the Theory of Action in Whitehead and Parsons", in Explorations in General Theory in Social Science, ed. Jan J. Loubser et al. (New York: The Free Press, 1976), chapter 5.
  14. ^ Michel Weber and Will Desmond, eds., Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Volume 1 (Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2008), 25.
  15. ^ "Alfred North Whitehead - Biography"European Graduate School. Archived from the original on 3 September 2013. Retrieved 12 December2013.
  16. ^ Wolfgang Smith, Cosmos and Transcendence: Breaking Through the Barrier of Scientistic Belief (Peru, Illinois: Sherwood Sugden and Company, 1984), 3.
  17. ^ Michel Weber and Will Desmond, eds., Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Volume 1 (Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2008), 13.
  18. Jump up to:a b Charles Birch, "Why Aren't We Zombies? Neo-Darwinism and Process Thought", in Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution, ed. John B. Cobb Jr. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 252.
  19. ^ "Young Voegelin in America". 6 March 2011.
  20. ^ "Integrating Whitehead".
  21. ^ David Ray GriffinReenchantment Without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), vii.
  22. Jump up to:a b "The Modern Library's Top 100 Nonfiction Books of the Century", last modified 30 April 1999, The New York Times, accessed 21 November 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/library/books/042999best-nonfiction-list.html.
  23. Jump up to:a b C. Robert MesleProcess-Relational Philosophy: An Introduction to Alfred North Whitehead (West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press, 2009), 9.
  24. Jump up to:a b c d e Philip Rose, On Whitehead (Belmont: Wadsworth, 2002), preface.
  25. ^ Cobb, John B., Jr.; Schwartz, Wm. Andrew (2018). Putting Philosophy to Work: Toward an Ecological Civilization. Process Century Press. ISBN 978-1940447339.
  26. Jump up to:a b c Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 2.
  27. Jump up to:a b Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 13.
  28. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 27.
  29. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 54–60.
  30. Jump up to:a b Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 63.
  31. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 72.
  32. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 103.
  33. ^ On Whitehead the mathematician and logician, see Ivor Grattan-GuinnessThe Search for Mathematical Roots 1870–1940: Logics, Set Theories, and the Foundations of Mathematics from Cantor through Russell to Gödel(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), and Quine's chapter in Paul SchilppThe Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1941), 125–163.
  34. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 112.
  35. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 2.
  36. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 6-8.
  37. Jump up to:a b Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 26-27.
  38. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 72-74.
  39. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 127.
  40. Jump up to:a b Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 132.
  41. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 3–4.
  42. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 34.
  43. ^ "Valley Heritage booklet"Fyfield and West Overton Parish Council. 1987. Retrieved 29 November 2020.
  44. ^ Lowe, Victor (31 March 1974). "Whitehead's 1911 Criticism of The Problems of Philosophy"Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies13: 1–28.
  45. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 262.
  46. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vols I & II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985 & 1990).
  47. Jump up to:a b Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 7.
  48. Jump up to:a b "Critical Edition of Whitehead", last modified 16 July 2013, Whitehead Research Project, accessed 21 November 2013, http://whiteheadresearch.org/research/cew/press-release.shtml Archived9 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine.
  49. ^ "The Edinburgh Critical Edition of the Complete Works of Alfred North Whitehead"Edinburgh University Press Books. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
  50. Jump up to:a b Christoph Wassermann, "The Relevance of An Introduction to Mathematics to Whitehead's Philosophy", Process Studies 17 (1988): 181. Available online at "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  51. ^ "Whitehead, Alfred North", last modified 8 May 2007, Gary L. Herstein, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 21 November 2013, http://www.iep.utm.edu/whitehed/.
  52. Jump up to:a b c George Grätzer, Universal Algebra (Princeton: Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1968), v.
  53. ^ Cf. Michel Weber and Will Desmond (eds.). Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought (Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process Thought X1 & X2, 2008) and Ronny Desmet & Michel Weber (edited by), Whitehead. The Algebra of Metaphysics. Applied Process Metaphysics Summer Institute Memorandum, Louvain-la-Neuve, Les Éditions Chromatika, 2010.
  54. ^ Alexander Macfarlane, "Review of A Treatise on Universal Algebra", Science 9 (1899): 325.
  55. ^ G. B. Mathews (1898) A Treatise on Universal Algebra from Nature58:385 to 7 (#1504)
  56. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 190–191.
  57. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, A Treatise on Universal Algebra (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898), v. Available online at http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?handle=euclid.chmm/1263316510&view=body&content-type=pdf_1
  58. ^ Barron Brainerd, "Review of Universal Algebra by P. M. Cohn", American Mathematical Monthly, 74 (1967): 878–880.
  59. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Principia Mathematica Volume 2, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), 83.
  60. Jump up to:a b Hal Hellman, Great Feuds in Mathematics: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2006). Available online at https://books.google.com/books?id=ft8bEGf_OOcC&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12#v=onepage&q&f=false
  61. ^ "Principia Mathematica", last modified 3 December 2013, Andrew David Irvine, ed. Edward N. Zalta, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), accessed 5 December 2013, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/#HOPM.
  62. ^ Stephen Cole KleeneMathematical Logic (New York: Wiley, 1967), 250.
  63. ^ "'Principia Mathematica' Celebrates 100 Years", last modified 22 December 2010, NPR, accessed 21 November 2013, https://www.npr.org/2010/12/22/132265870/Principia-Mathematica-Celebrates-100-Years
  64. ^ "Principia Mathematica", last modified 3 December 2013, Andrew David Irvine, ed. Edward N. Zalta, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), accessed 5 December 2013, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/#SOPM.
  65. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, An Introduction to Mathematics, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911), 8.
  66. ^ Christoph Wassermann, "The Relevance of An Introduction to Mathematics to Whitehead's Philosophy", Process Studies 17 (1988): 181–182. Available online at "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  67. ^ Christoph Wassermann, "The Relevance of An Introduction to Mathematics to Whitehead's Philosophy", Process Studies 17 (1988): 182. Available online at "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  68. ^ Committee To Inquire into the Position of Classics in the Educational System of the United Kingdom, Report of the Committee Appointed by the Prime Minister to Inquire into the Position of Classics in the Educational System of the United Kingdom, (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1921), 1, 282. Available online at https://archive.org/details/reportofcommitt00grea.
  69. Jump up to:a b Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays (New York: The Free Press, 1967), 1–2.
  70. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays (New York: The Free Press, 1967), 2.
  71. Jump up to:a b c d e f "China embraces Alfred North Whitehead", last modified 10 December 2008, Douglas Todd, The Vancouver Sun, accessed 5 December 2013, http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2008/12/10/china-embraces-alfred-north-whitehead/.
  72. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays (New York: The Free Press, 1967), 13.
  73. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays (New York: The Free Press, 1967), 93.
  74. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays (New York: The Free Press, 1967), 98.
  75. ^ "An Iconic College View: Harvard University, circa 1900. Richard Rummell (1848–1924)", last modified 6 July 2011, Graham Arader, accessed 5 December 2013, http://grahamarader.blogspot.com/2011/07/iconic-college-view-harvard-university.html.
  76. ^ Alfred North Whitehead to Bertrand Russell, 13 February 1895, Bertrand Russell Archives, Archives and Research Collections, McMaster Library, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  77. ^ A. J. AyerLanguage, Truth and Logic, (New York: Penguin, 1971), 22.
  78. ^ George P. Conger, "Whitehead lecture notes: Seminary in Logic: Logical and Metaphysical Problems", 1927, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
  79. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 4.
  80. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 11.
  81. Jump up to:a b Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: The Free Press, 1967), 17.
  82. Jump up to:a b c d Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 18.
  83. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 127, 133.
  84. Jump up to:a b c Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Crisis, Irony, and Postmodernity, 1950–2005 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 123–124.
  85. ^ Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol II(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990), 250.
  86. Jump up to:a b Gary Dorrien, "The Lure and Necessity of Process Theology", CrossCurrents 58 (2008): 320.
  87. ^ Henry Nelson Wieman, "A Philosophy of Religion", The Journal of Religion10 (1930): 137.
  88. ^ Peter Simons, "Metaphysical systematics: A lesson from Whitehead", Erkenntnis 48 (1998), 378.
  89. Jump up to:a b Isabelle StengersThinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts, trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2011), 6.
  90. ^ David Ray GriffinWhitehead's Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy: An Argument for Its Contemporary Relevance (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), viii–ix.
  91. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 208.
  92. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: The Free Press, 1967), 52–55.
  93. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 34–35.
  94. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 34.
  95. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: The Free Press, 1967), 54–55.
  96. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 183.
  97. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), 38–39.
  98. ^ Louise R. Heath, "Notes on Whitehead's Philosophy 3b: Philosophical Presuppositions of Science", 27 September 1924, Whitehead Research Project, Center for Process Studies, Claremont, California.
  99. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), 26.
  100. Jump up to:a b Alfred North Whitehead, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), 39.
  101. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 19.
  102. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 21.
  103. Jump up to:a b Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 23.
  104. ^ Charles Hartshorne, "Freedom Requires Indeterminism and Universal Causality", The Journal of Philosophy 55 (1958): 794.
  105. ^ John B. CobbA Christian Natural Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1978), 52.
  106. Jump up to:a b c David Ray GriffinReenchantment Without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 79.
  107. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), 44.
  108. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), 24.
  109. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), 3.
  110. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), 4.
  111. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), 49.
  112. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, The Function of Reason (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), 4.
  113. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, The Function of Reason (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), 4–5.
  114. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, The Function of Reason (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), 8.
  115. ^ David Ray GriffinReenchantment Without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 97.
  116. ^ Roland FaberGod as Poet of the World: Exploring Process Theologies(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), chapters 4–5.
  117. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 342.
  118. Jump up to:a b Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 343.
  119. Jump up to:a b Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 207.
  120. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 345.
  121. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 344.
  122. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 346.
  123. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 347–348, 351.
  124. Jump up to:a b Bruce G. EpperlyProcess Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 12.
  125. ^ Roland FaberGod as Poet of the World: Exploring Process Theologies(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), chapter 1.
  126. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making (New York: Fordham University Press, 1996), 15–16.
  127. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making (New York: Fordham University Press, 1996), 16–17.
  128. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making (New York: Fordham University Press, 1996), 15.
  129. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making (New York: Fordham University Press, 1996), 18.
  130. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making (New York: Fordham University Press, 1996), 59.
  131. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making (New York: Fordham University Press, 1996), 60.
  132. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 16.
  133. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 15.
  134. ^ George Garin, "Theistic Evolution in a Sacramental Universe: The Theology of William Temple Against the Background of Process Thinkers (Whitehead, Alexander, Etc.)," (Protestant University Press, Kinshasa, The Congo, 1991).
  135. ^ Gary Dorrien, "The Lure and Necessity of Process Theology", CrossCurrents 58 (2008): 321–322.
  136. ^ David Ray Griffin, "John B. Cobb, Jr.: A Theological Biography", in Theology and the University: Essays in Honor of John B. Cobb, Jr., ed. David Ray Griffin and Joseph C. Hough, Jr. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 229.
  137. ^ Gary Dorrien, "The Lure and Necessity of Process Theology", CrossCurrents 58 (2008): 334.
  138. Jump up to:a b Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and his Work, Vol I(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1985), 5.
  139. ^ "About Us"www.postmodernchina.org. The Institute for the Postmodern Development of China. Archived from the original on 2 December 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  140. ^ "Whitehead, Alfred North", last modified 8 May 2007, Gary L. Herstein, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 20 July 2015, http://www.iep.utm.edu/whitehed/.
  141. ^ "Quine Biography", last modified October 2003, John J. O'Connor and Edmund F. RobertsonMacTutor History of Mathematics archiveUniversity of St Andrews, accessed 5 December 2013, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Quine.html.
  142. ^ John Searle, "Contemporary Philosophy in the United States", in N. Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, 2nd ed., (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 1.
  143. ^ Gilles DeleuzeThe Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, trans. Tom Conley (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), 76.
  144. ^ Bruno Latour, preface to Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts, by Isabelle Stengers, trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2011), x.
  145. ^ "Alfred North Whitehead", last modified 10 March 2015, Andrew David Irvine, ed. Edward N. Zalta, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), accessed 20 July 2015, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/#WI
  146. ^ "Alfred North Whitehead", last modified 1 October 2013, Andrew David Irvine, ed. Edward N. Zalta, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), accessed 21 November 2013, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/#WI
  147. ^ Charles HartshorneA Christian Natural Theology, 2nd edition (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 112.
  148. ^ Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 351.
  149. ^ Charles HartshorneThe Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), 42–43.
  150. ^ See part IV of Mesle's Process Theology: A Basic Introduction (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1993).
  151. ^ "Search Results For: SUNY series in Constructive Postmodern Thought", Sunypress.edu, accessed 5 December 2013, http://www.sunypress.edu/Searchadv.aspx?IsSubmit=true&CategoryID=6899.
  152. ^ "Richard Rorty", last modified 16 June 2007, Bjørn Ramberg, ed. Edward N. Zalta, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), accessed 5 December 2013, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/rorty/.
  153. Jump up to:a b See David Ray GriffinPhysics and the Ultimate Significance of Time(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986).
  154. ^ Chandrasekhar, S. (1979). Einstein and general relativity, Am. J. Phys. 47: 212–217.
  155. ^ Will, C.M. (1981/1993). Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, revised edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, ISBN 978-0-521-43973-2, p. 139.
  156. ^ Yutaka Tanaka, "The Comparison between Whitehead's and Einstein's Theories of Relativity", Historia Scientiarum 32 (1987).
  157. ^ Timothy E. Eastman and Hank Keeton, eds., Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004).
  158. ^ Michael Epperson, Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (New York: Fordham University Press, 2004).
  159. ^ Michael Epperson & Elias Zafiris, Foundations of Relational Realism: A Topological Approach to Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Nature(New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013).
  160. ^ Roland FaberGod as Poet of the World: Exploring Process Theologies(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 35.
  161. ^ C. Robert MesleProcess Theology (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1993), 126.
  162. ^ Gary Dorrien, "The Lure and Necessity of Process Theology", CrossCurrents 58 (2008): 316.
  163. ^ Monica ColemanNancy R. Howell, and Helene Tallon Russell, Creating Women's Theology: A Movement Engaging Process Thought (Wipf and Stock, 2011), 13.
  164. ^ "History of Environmental Ethics for the Novice", last modified 15 March 2011, The Center for Environmental Philosophy, accessed 21 November 2013, http://www.cep.unt.edu/novice.html.
  165. ^ John B. Cobb Jr., Sustaining the Common Good: A Christian Perspective on the Global Economy (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 1994), back cover.
  166. ^ See Process Papers, a publication of the Association for Process Philosophy of Education. Volume 1 published in 1996, Volume 11 (final volume) published in 2008.
  167. ^ Daniel C. Jordan and Raymond P. Shepard, "The Philosophy of the ANISA Model", Process Papers 6, 38–39.
  168. ^ "FEELS: A Constructive Postmodern Approach To Curriculum and Education", Xie Bangxiu, JesusJazzBuddhism.org, accessed 5 December 2013, http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/feels.html Archived 2 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine.
  169. ^ "International Conferences – University of Saskatchewan", University of Saskatchewan, accessed 5 December 2013, https://www.usask.ca/usppru/international-conferences.php.
  170. ^ "Dr. Howard Woodhouse" Archived 7 May 2016 at the Wayback Machine, University of Saskatchewan, accessed 5 December 2013
  171. ^ Tor Hernes, A Process Theory of Organization (Oxford University Press, 2014)
  172. ^ Mark R. Dibben and John B. Cobb Jr., "Special Focus: Process Thought and Organization Studies," in Process Studies 32 (2003).
  173. ^ "Mark Dibben – School of Management – University of Tasmania, Australia", last modified 16 July 2013, University of Tasmania, accessed 21 November 2013, http://www.utas.edu.au/business-and-economics/people/profiles/accounting/Mark-Dibben Archived 13 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine.
  174. ^ Mark Dibben, "Exploring the Processual Nature of Trust and Cooperation in Organisations: A Whiteheadian Analysis," in Philosophy of Management 4(2004): 25-39; Mark Dibben, "Organisations and Organising: Understanding and Applying Whitehead’s Processual Account," in Philosophy of Management 7 (2009); Cristina Neesham and Mark Dibben, "The Social Value of Business: Lessons from Political Economy and Process Philosophy," in Applied Ethics: Remembering Patrick Primeaux (Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations, Volume 8), ed. Michael Schwartz and Howard Harris (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2012): 63-83.
  175. ^ Margaret Stout & Carrie M. Staton, "The Ontology of Process Philosophy in Follett's Administrative Theory" Administrative Theory & Praxis 33 (2011): 268.
  176. ^ Margaret Stout & Jeannine M. Love, Integrative Process: Follettian Thinking from Ontology to Administration, (Anoka, MN: Process Century Press 2015).
  177. ^ Adventures of Ideas p. 105, 1933 edition; p. 83, 1967 ed.
  178. ^ Morris, Randall C., Journal of the History of Ideas 51: 75-92. p. 92.
  179. ^ F.W. Owens, "Review: The Axioms of Descriptive Geometry by A. N. Whitehead", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 15 (1909): 465–466. Available online at http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1909-15-09/S0002-9904-1909-01815-4/S0002-9904-1909-01815-4.pdf.
  180. ^ James Byrnie Shaw, "Review: Principia Mathematica by A. N. Whitehead and B. Russell, Vol. I, 1910", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society18 (1912): 386–411. Available online at http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1912-18-08/S0002-9904-1912-02233-4/S0002-9904-1912-02233-4.pdf.
  181. ^ Benjamin Abram Bernstein, "Review: Principia Mathematica by A. N. Whitehead and B. Russell, Vol. I, Second Edition, 1925", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 32 (1926): 711–713. Available online at http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1926-32-06/S0002-9904-1926-04306-8/S0002-9904-1926-04306-8.pdf.
  182. ^ Alonzo Church, "Review: Principia Mathematica by A. N. Whitehead and B. Russell, Volumes II and III, Second Edition, 1927", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 34 (1928): 237–240. Available online at http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1928-34-02/S0002-9904-1928-04525-1/S0002-9904-1928-04525-1.pdf.

Further reading

For the most comprehensive list of resources related to Whitehead, see the thematic bibliography of the Center for Process Studies.

  • Casati, Roberto, and Achille C. Varzi. Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1999.
  • Ford, Lewis. Emergence of Whitehead's Metaphysics, 1925–1929. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985.
  • Hartshorne, CharlesWhitehead's Philosophy: Selected Essays, 1935–1970. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1972.
  • Henning, Brian G. The Ethics of Creativity: Beauty, Morality, and Nature in a Processive Cosmos. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005.
  • Holtz, Harald and Ernest Wolf-Gazo, eds. Whitehead und der Prozeßbegriff / Whitehead and The Idea of Process. Proceedings of the First International Whitehead-Symposion. Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg i. B. / München, 1984. ISBN 3-495-47517-6
  • Jones, Judith A. Intensity: An Essay in Whiteheadian Ontology. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1998.
  • Kraus, Elizabeth M. The Metaphysics of Experience. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979.
  • Malik, Charles H.The Systems of Whitehead's Metaphysics. Zouq Mosbeh, Lebanon: Notre Dame Louaize, 2016. 436 pp.
  • McDaniel, Jay. What is Process Thought?: Seven Answers to Seven Questions. Claremont: P&F Press, 2008.
  • McHenry, Leemon. The Event Universe: The Revisionary Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015.
  • Nobo, Jorge L. Whitehead's Metaphysics of Extension and Solidarity. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986.
  • Price, Lucien. Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead. New York: Mentor Books, 1956.
  • Quine, Willard Van Orman. "Whitehead and the rise of modern logic." In The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, 125–163. Evanston and Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1941.
  • Rapp, Friedrich and Reiner Wiehl, eds. Whiteheads Metaphysik der Kreativität. Internationales Whitehead-Symposium Bad Homburg 1983. Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg i. B. / München, 1986. ISBN 3-495-47612-1
  • Rescher, NicholasProcess Metaphysics. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
  • Rescher, NicholasProcess Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2001.
  • Schilpp, Paul Arthur, ed. The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Evanston and Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1941. Part of the Library of Living Philosophers series.
  • Siebers, Johan. The Method of Speculative Philosophy: An Essay on the Foundations of Whitehead's Metaphysics. Kassel: Kassel University Press GmbH, 2002. ISBN 3-933146-79-8
  • Smith, Olav Bryant. Myths of the Self: Narrative Identity and Postmodern Metaphysics. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004. ISBN 0-7391-0843-3
– Contains a section called "Alfred North Whitehead: Toward a More Fundamental Ontology" that is an overview of Whitehead's metaphysics.

External links




Thursday, July 1, 2021

Whitehead's Process Speculation about Multiverses before there was Speculation



Whitehead's Process Speculation about
Multiverses before there was Speculation

I just recently put together Over the last several days a couple articles on EM/QED and then saw Paul's statement below in connection with Whitehead's multiverse theory and electromagnetic societies as spacetime singularities:
Alfred North Whitehead, the smartest man who ever lived [in my opinion], foretold of our universe existing as only one of many. Today it is known as the multiverse theory.

Seventy years before modern physics, [mathematician-philosopher] Alfred North Whitehead pioneered the framework of multiverse theory by what he described as a "plurality of cosmic epochs", “the theory of society,” and the notion of "the geometrical society" which harbors the existence of the cosmic epochs - one which [may] contain all possible geometrical configurations, allowing multiple dimensions required by M-theory.

Whitehead also foretold that evidence of “our cosmic epoch” (our universe) is all we would be able to to trace. 
The phrase "cosmic epoch is used to mean the widest society of actual entities whose immediate relevance to ourselves is traceable.”

Whitehead also called “our cosmic epoch” an "electromagnetic society that began as a spacetime singularity" - now known as the big bang roughly 14 billion years ago and has been expanding and cooling ever since. 


Following up Paul's reference turned up this little gem by Leemon McHenry at California State University:

The Multiverse Conjecture: Whitehead’s Cosmic Epochs and Contemporary Cosmology (21 pages)


*Leemon McHenry teaches philosophy at California State University, Northridge, CA 
Abstract: Recent developments in cosmology and particle physics have led to speculation that our universe is merely one of a multitude of universes. While this notion, the multiverse hypothesis, is highly contested as legitimate science, it has nonetheless struck many physicists as a necessary consequence of the effort to construct a final, unified theory. In Process and Reality (1929), his magnum opus, Alfred North Whitehead advanced a cosmology as part of his general metaphysics of process. Part of this project involved a theory of cosmic epochs which bears a remarkable affinity to current cosmological speculation. This paper demonstrates how the basic framework of a multiverse theory is already present in Whitehead’s cosmology and defends the necessity of speculation in the quest for an explanatory description. 

 

An example of entropy in biological systems

Process as a Continuous State of Unfolding Entropy

For myself, I can see the historical appropriations of Whitehead connecting process philosophy to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory (it's easy enough to do between both systems as I hinted at here). And though I have no problem with multiverse theory (it'd be highly unusual if our cosmos were the only universe... without having simultaneous derivatives of all kinds of universes as proposed under M-theory). But I didn't think the many worlds concept came out until the late fifties by Hugh Everett (1957). Still, process philosophy would very easily connect with this theory too as apparently Whitehead speculated when sensing the flow and rhythm of an organic universe. That is to say, things do not arise by themselves, but in relational communities with one another, which is the nub of multiverse theory.

Said differently, even as evolutionary theory shows the process of entropy attempting to lowering its loss of energy (thus a hot earth is cooled by living organic processes) so too would one expect an evolution of cosmi (plural of cosmos?) which come-and-go exploiting all connective opportunities while driven towards novelty and in-state wellbeing.

Thus, these perturbations of our cosmos finds ourselves in it and asking the kind of questions sentient beings might ask within the framework and conditions of this cosmos (I lean strongly towards the weak anthropic principle - see here and here: "A Tale of Two Cities" - where there can be no preconditions, no divine fiats or commands overruling the process proceeding from God's Self, only undirected interactions in relational context to the whole. My only argument for the strong anthropic principle lies in the embedding of God's Self and His Love within the process itself granting a positive creativity and need for wellbeing. Combined, both concepts give a teleology to process theology).


Does Process Thought Allow for a Teleology?

That said, I also believe God gave to all universes indeterminant freewill underlaid by the process principles of divine love speaking to not only freedom but wellbeing (a kind of entropic statism, if you will).
How Do We Explain the Incredible Uniqueness of Our Form of Multiverse?

[Excerpt] "The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our Universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with possibly different physical laws (or different fundamental physical constants), some of these universes, even if very few, would have the combination of laws and fundamental parameters that are suitable for the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, stars, and planets that can exist long enough for life to emerge and evolve.

"The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we (as conscious beings) would only exist in one of those few universes that happened to be finely tuned, permitting the existence of life with developing consciousness. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that any particular universe would have the requisite conditions for life (as we understand [carbon-based] life) to emerge and evolve, this would not necessarily require intelligent design per a teleological argument for the strong anthropic principle as the only explanation for the conditions in the Universe which promotes our existence in it." - res, June14.2012  

 


Summary Speculations

Which means, our universe is neither the first, nor the last, in a long line of novel creations but are always found in the perpetual state of outcome as "organically relational cosmic entities" developing from states of being towards endless states of becoming. And not simply one after the other in linear progression, but as many, becoming many more, like bubbles shot out of an infinite number of bubble guns!

This is the kind of process creation which I would expect a process God to have created. A God who himself is the first process of all succeeding sub tending processes as they mix and break apart from one another in differing combinations of novelty and creative relational bundling.

And lastly, we live in a much older "-Verse" than mere physical light years can measure when thinking of all the preceding -verses which have come and gone before our own. -Verses which are more than their matter, of which makes they are composed. But of a summing up of a panpsychic, panexistential, albeit "spiritual," presence we seldom seem to senseas we bustle about like ants on the ground, but can feel vibrating all around us in the aftermaths of creational spaces.

The vagabond butterfly, the whispering tree, the moving wind... even our own personal beings and presence with one another with nature itself. There is a there, there, which one might call divine or spiritual but we might all call beauty and wonder. And like Whitehead's speculation, God's handiwork extends everywhere... both in this world and far beyond it.

Though a Process God does not determine the future, as the Very Process itself God is steeped within it, infilling all its spaces and relational processes. God does not need to know the future because God is the future. God is the One who ever lives on the edge of the becoming future.

Process Theology then is a different kind of animal then the church has witnessed before even as evolutionary processes and the quantum sciences. And it's time to re-read the bible's narratival stories with an eye towards the processes occuring in spacetime amongst the ancients - and even before them in the primal dawns of the living, the lit, and the whole. Peace, my friends. Peace.

R.E.Slater
July 1, 2021

* * * * * * * *


Are we living in a Multiverse?

A closer look at four different types
of parallel universe(s)

by Prince
March 26, 2018




I have found the multiverse subject extremely enticing, as it provided me a way to reflect upon my existence and forced me to question everything. In this article I want to share and explain from different perspectives (scientific, theological, fictional, philosophical) the four different levels of multiverses suggested by scientists and astronomers.

We usually think of our universe as a vast nearly endlessly expanse that contains every star [and] galaxy in existence. But, what if there is more than one universe? Could it be that we live in a multiverse?

Our universe as we know, originated from a huge explosion that is known as the big bang. In the first split second after the big bang the universe underwent a fast expansion, known as the cosmic inflation. 

Our universe in the last 13.7 billion years has expanded enormously from the size of an atom and [it has kept expanding ever] since then. There was a time when the universe was expanding so rapidly that the parts of it were moving away from each other faster than the speed of light.

Why we might be living in a Multiverse?

In ancient times it was believed that the earth [was the center of the universe and the other planet revolved around it. Then], later on, we discovered that the earth revolves around the Sun which is part of the solar system, and our solar system was found to be a part of the Milky Way galaxy. By further observations scientists learned that our universe is composed with other billions of such galaxies, each galaxy containing billions of stars. We can only see a small portion of the entire universe, known as the observable universe, which has a diameter of 93 billion light years and the radius of approximately 46 billion light years.

According to modern theories of particle physics there might be other parallel universes like ours in the vast collection of universes so called multiverse. Scientists have started taking the idea of parallel universes very seriously in the past years and the majority of cosmologists today agree with the concept of a multiverse, which is the idea that our universe might not be the only one of its kind. There are number of theories about what the multiverse could be and there are four different perspectives of looking at them.

Level I — The Quilted Multiverse

Quilted Universe

There isn’t one single multiverse hypothesis, cosmologist Max Tegmark has proposed four different types of multiverse that might exist. The quilted universes model is predicted by the theory of inflation developed by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde, which suggests that the space itself is not just big but is infinite in size. Beyond the range of our telescopes are other regions of space, those regions are a type of parallel universes with the same physical laws and constants, some identical to ours while some very different from ours, and there is a probability for one of those parallel universes being identical to ours.

From scientific point of view, we are just a configuration of different particles, and according to science matter can be arranged only in finite ways and afterwards it tends to repeat itself. Based on the same idea according to Dr Tegmark an identical Hubble space to ours should be around 10 to the 10¹¹⁸, beyond that it must repeat, which means there might another you in another universe. However, we cannot observe those regions of space with our current technology, the farthest that we can observe is about 42 billion light years, which is the distance that light has been able to travel to us since the big bang happened. This quilted multiverse model is not really a theory, but rather a prediction, because it is predicted by the theory of inflation, and it agrees with the data provided by the cosmologists.

For example, Einstein’s general theory of relativity is not a theory anymore, it was in the past, but it has been proved and tested, and now scientists take it very seriously and use it as a scientific model in order to make sense of the events, even though it predicts lots of things which cannot be tested or observed, such as what happens if you fall inside a black hole. Hence, this model makes sense from scientific perspective, which requires logic and nature to make sense of the events. Even though this model is not a scientific model yet, as it is not testable, and we don’t have any observational evidences to prove this model, but it is predictable. For a theory to be scientific, you don’t have to observe everything that it predicts, but be able to observe only one thing that it predicts. Therefore, the lack of evidence for the existence of something, is not the evidence for the lack of something.

Level II — Inflationary Multiverse

Inflationary Multiverse

The level I multiverse model was complicated to comprehend, the level II model forces us to open our imagination to infinite possibilities. The second model is based on the idea of infinite bubble universes, known as the inflationary multiverse model. In order to understand this model it is necessary to understand how the theory of inflation works, which tells us how the big bang occurred. The inflationary multiverse model suggests that the universe is infinite in size, and according to the theory of cosmic inflation the big bang that created our universe may not have been a onetime event, instead it could have happened again and again and going on forever known as eternal inflation. As you are reading this sentence, there might be another big bang happening out in the cosmos, giving births to other universes or bubble universes. Our universe is part of one of those infinite bubbles, which is filled with matter deposited by the energy field that drove inflation, a process that would continue eternally. We will never get to those bubbles even if we travel at the speed of light. The bubbles vary not only in the initial conditions but also in aspects of nature with different space-time dimensions and different physical constants.

This model is not scientific either, as it lacks observable evidences. This idea of the multiverse is sounder from a theological perspective, where all the natural laws can be broken. Much of modern theology tries to address the questions concerning our existence on this planet. Since theology doesn’t require any observational evidences in order to make sense of the events.

Theists can easily argue that God is the creator and sustainer of the entire universe. Being omnipotent and omniscient God has the power to control everything. Hence, God decided to create not one universe but many, as God would be the one who created space and time, the inflation and the big bang. According to theism, once you have a transcendence source of everything, space and time, matter and energy, then God is free to create any type physical reality he wants. Therefore, theology can agree with this concept more than science, as science require evidence, unlike theology.

Level III — Quantum Universe

Quantum Universe

The third level multiverse model, is known as quantum many worlds, which is the most controversial type. This quantum multiverse model concentrates on the idea of quantum mechanics, and is very different from the first two models. Quantum mechanics works on probabilities, it states that there are a range of possible observations, each with a different probability. In order to be clear, if in this universe you are reading this paper, in another quantum universe you might be reading a different paper, in yet another universe you got offered a job, or perhaps in many you don’t exist at all. This idea tells us that there are an infinite number of universes, with infinite number of possible outcomes, where random quantum processes splits the universe into multiple copies. At every point, a new universe is being created.

This model makes more sense from fictional point of view, as there are no limits to the realms, events can make sense or not, one can either obey the logic or defy it. I am firmly unconvinced by this theory, it is still fictional to me, as I believe that we do not have established the analysis about how the quantum thinking would describe this observation. Quantum physics is the science that attempts to explain phenomena which cannot be explained by science and physics. This is why perhaps scientists love the quantum world idea as it explains mathematically things which are not observable.

I believe that we do not understand the quantum physics completely yet. In order to understand quantum mechanics it is very important to understand how quantum mechanics would link up with the observation. The link between quantum mechanics and the observation is still missing.If the ideas which makes sense mathematically are linked up with the observation, then perhaps it can enhance our understanding for the quantum multiverse. Nevertheless, there needs to be done more research on this theory in order to understand it completely which will require more time from physicists.

Level IV- Brane Multiverse

Brane Multiverse

The level I, II and III varies from each other but they are governed by the same natural fundamental laws. Moving to the fourth level multiverse, which revolves around string theory, is called the brane multiverse. This model suggests that universes can differ not only in shape, but also in different laws of physics. The brane multiverse theory suggests that there can be more dimensions than three. We live in a four dimensional universe including time, but in brane multiverse, our four dimensional universe lives on a membrane, or brane, that is embedded with more than four dimensions. The idea here is that our membrane is not the only one, there might be other membranes. Existing outside of space and time, they are almost impossible to visualize.

This model is the most unclear and sounds crazy to me. It is definitely not a scientific model, as String theory is not a complete theory yet. I would see this model more from a philosophical point of view, where observational evidences are not required, one can use logic to make sense of the events. I strongly believe that the brane multiverse hypothesis has high probability to fall under scientific realm in the near future, as the brane multiverse model has the chance of being experimentally tested based on string theory under shortest time frame.


String theory states that the space is made up of tiny little filaments known as strings which vibrates at different patterns, and according to scientists this proposal might be tested at the LSG (large hadron collider).

There is no doubt that the concept remains science fiction for now, however the lack of scientific proof should not be the reason to stop questioning. Hence, it is important for the concept of parallel universes to be explored completely, even though they lack observational evidences. One way can be to work on the multiverse theories which have highest chances of being tested in the shortest period of time frame.

I can confidently conclude, none of the multiverse models mentioned above are scientific models and remains unproven for now, as they lack observational evidences, but this should not stop science to investigate further on these ideas. I am eager to find out what the next big discovery will be in the multiverse hypothesis.



* * * * * * * *


Sean Carroll: Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Nov 5, 2019




The Many Worlds of the Quantum Multiverse | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
Oct 26, 2016



Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why
Mar 6, 2020



Sean Carroll explains: what is the many-worlds interpretation?
Jan 8, 2020



Roger Penrose - Many Worlds of Quantum Theory
Mar 16, 2020



Sean Carroll: The many worlds of quantum mechanics
Jun 24, 2020




* * * * * * * *





Many-worlds interpretation

Jump to navigationJump to search
The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox according to the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this interpretation, every quantum event is a branch point; the cat is both alive and dead, even before the box is opened, but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe, both of which are equally real, but which do not interact with each other.[a]
The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wavefunction collapse.[2] This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe.[3] In contrast to some other interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the evolution of reality as a whole in MWI is rigidly deterministic.[2]:8–9 Many-worlds is also called the relative state formulation or the Everett interpretation, after physicist Hugh Everett, who first proposed it in 1957.[4][5] Bryce DeWitt popularized the formulation and named it many-worlds in the 1960s and 1970s.[1][6][7][2]

In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence. Decoherence approaches to interpreting quantum theory have been widely explored and developed since the 1970s,[8][9][10] and have become quite popular. MWI is now considered a mainstream interpretation along with the other decoherence interpretations, collapse theories (including the Copenhagen interpretation), and hidden variable theories such as Bohmian mechanics.

The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are very many universes, perhaps infinitely many.[11] It is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. MWI views time as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised. This is intended to resolve some paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[5]:462[2]:118 and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of a quantum event exists in its own universe.

History

In 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in Dublin in which at one point he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might "seem lunatic". He went on to assert that while the Schrödinger equation seemed to be describing several different histories, they were "not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously". Schrödinger stated that replacing "simultaneous happenings" with "alternatives" followed from the assumption that "what we really observe are particles", calling it an inevitable consequence of that assumption yet a "strange decision". According to David Deutsch, this is the earliest known reference to many-worlds, while Jeffrey A. Barrett describes it as indicating the similarity of "general views" between Everett and Schrödinger.[12][13][14]

MWI originated in Everett's Princeton Ph.D. thesis "The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction",[2] developed under his thesis advisor John Archibald Wheeler, a shorter summary of which was published in 1957 under the title "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" (Wheeler contributed the title "relative state";[15] Everett originally called his approach the "Correlation Interpretation", where "correlation" refers to quantum entanglement). The phrase "many-worlds" is due to Bryce DeWitt,[2] who was responsible for the wider popularisation of Everett's theory, which was largely ignored for a decade after publication.[11]

~ The Overview and Science sections are skipped in this post ~

Reception

MWI's initial reception was overwhelmingly negative, with the notable exception of DeWitt. Wheeler made considerable efforts to formulate the theory in a way that would be palatable to Bohr, visited Copenhagen in 1956 to discuss it with him, and convinced Everett to visit as well, which happened in 1959. Nevertheless, Bohr and his collaborators completely rejected the theory.[d] Everett left academia in 1956, never to return, and Wheeler eventually disavowed the theory.[11]

One of MWI's strongest advocates is David Deutsch.[64] According to Deutsch, the single photon interference pattern observed in the double slit experiment can be explained by interference of photons in multiple universes. Viewed this way, the single photon interference experiment is indistinguishable from the multiple photon interference experiment. In a more practical vein, in one of the earliest papers on quantum computing,[65] he suggested that parallelism that results from MWI could lead to "a method by which certain probabilistic tasks can be performed faster by a universal quantum computer than by any classical restriction of it". Deutsch has also proposed that MWI will be testable (at least against "naive" Copenhagenism) when reversible computers become conscious via the reversible observation of spin.[66]

Asher Peres was an outspoken critic of MWI. A section of his 1993 textbook had the title Everett's interpretation and other bizarre theories. Peres argued that the various many-worlds interpretations merely shift the arbitrariness or vagueness of the collapse postulate to the question of when "worlds" can be regarded as separate, and that no objective criterion for that separation can actually be formulated.[67]

Some consider MWI[68][69] unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them. Others[66] claim MWI is directly testable.

Victor J. Stenger remarked that Murray Gell-Mann's published work explicitly rejects the existence of simultaneous parallel universes.[70] Collaborating with James Hartle, Gell-Mann had been, before his death, working toward the development a more "palatable" post-Everett quantum mechanics. Stenger thought it fair to say that most physicists dismiss the many-worlds interpretation as too extreme, while noting it "has merit in finding a place for the observer inside the system being analyzed and doing away with the troublesome notion of wave function collapse".[e]

Philosophers of science James Ladyman and Don Ross state that the MWI could be true, but that they do not embrace it. They note that no quantum theory is yet empirically adequate for describing all of reality, given its lack of unification with general relativity, and so they do not see a reason to regard any interpretation of quantum mechanics as the final word in metaphysics. They also suggest that the multiple branches may be an artifact of incomplete descriptions and of using quantum mechanics to represent the states of macroscopic objects. They argue that macroscopic objects are significantly different from microscopic objects in not being isolated from the environment, and that using quantum formalism to describe them lacks explanatory and descriptive power and accuracy.[71]

Polls

A poll of 72 "leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[72]

Max Tegmark reports the result of a "highly unscientific" poll taken at a 1997 quantum mechanics workshop. According to Tegmark, "The many worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the consistent histories and Bohm interpretations."[73]

In response to Sean M. Carroll's statement "As crazy as it sounds, most working physicists buy into the many-worlds theory",[74] Michael Nielsen counters: "at a quantum computing conference at Cambridge in 1998, a many-worlder surveyed the audience of approximately 200 people... Many-worlds did just fine, garnering support on a level comparable to, but somewhat below, Copenhagen and decoherence." But Nielsen notes that it seemed most attendees found it to be a waste of time: Peres "got a huge and sustained round of applause…when he got up at the end of the polling and asked 'And who here believes the laws of physics are decided by a democratic vote?'"[75]

A 2005 poll of fewer than 40 students and researchers taken after a course on the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics at the Institute for Quantum Computing University of Waterloo found "Many Worlds (and decoherence)" to be the least favored.[76]

A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;[77] the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.[77]

Debate whether the other worlds are real

Everett believed in the literal reality of the other quantum worlds.[22] His son reported that he "never wavered in his belief over his many-worlds theory".[78]

According to Martin Gardner, the "other" worlds of MWI have two different interpretations: real or unreal; he claimed that Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg both favour the unreal interpretation.[79] Gardner also claimed that most physicists favour the unreal interpretation, whereas the "realist" view is supported only by MWI experts such as Deutsch and DeWitt. Hawking has said that "according to Feynman's idea", all other histories are as "equally real" as our own, [f] and Gardner reports Hawking saying that MWI is "trivially true".[81] In a 1983 interview, Hawking also said he regarded MWI as "self-evidently correct" but was dismissive of questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, saying, "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun." In the same interview, he also said, "But, look: All that one does, really, is to calculate conditional probabilities—in other words, the probability of A happening, given B. I think that that's all the many worlds interpretation is. Some people overlay it with a lot of mysticism about the wave function splitting into different parts. But all that you're calculating is conditional probabilities."[82] Elsewhere Hawking contrasted his attitude towards the "reality" of physical theories with that of his colleague Roger Penrose, saying, "He's a Platonist and I'm a positivist. He's worried that Schrödinger's cat is in a quantum state, where it is half alive and half dead. He feels that can't correspond to reality. But that doesn't bother me. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements. Quantum theory does this very successfully."[83] For his own part, Penrose agrees with Hawking that quantum mechanics applied to the universe implies MW, but he believes the lack of a successful theory of quantum gravity negates the claimed universality of conventional quantum mechanics.[27]